Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[Britt]

Originally Posted by TLynn

I can't take the poll because I don't know. I know the Ramseys have lied...I know they have covered up the crime...but I don't know for who!

TLynn has inspired me to start a new poll with two options only:

!. The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

2. The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

[Arielle]

Question 1: by Ramseys, do you mean only Patsy, John and Burke or can we include JohnAndrew and Melinda in this category?

Question 2: Does the cover-up have to include the "staging" or can it just be misleading the police in the days after the murder?

When I have these answers, I will happily take your poll.

[VespaElf]

Originally Posted by Arielle

Question 1: by Ramseys, do you mean only Patsy, John and Burke or can we include JohnAndrew and Melinda in this category?

Question 2: Does the cover-up have to include the "staging" or can it just be misleading the police in the days after the murder?

When I have these answers, I will happily take your poll.

I took it to mean any one w/ the last name 'Ramsey' and isnt misleading LE a cover-up?

[Britt]

Originally Posted by Arielle

Question 1: by Ramseys, do you mean only Patsy, John and Burke or can we include JohnAndrew and Melinda in this category?

Sorry for any confusion, Arielle. I'm just trying to keep it as general as possible. I based the question on TLynn's post, and what I meant was: Even if John and/or Patsy weren't involved in the crime, did they help cover (includes lying) for someone - anyone - else?

Question 2: Does the cover-up have to include the "staging" or can it just be misleading the police in the days after the murder?

Cover-up includes any kind of dishonesty, including misleading police, for the purpose of covering knowledge of (or possible knowledge of) or involvement in the crime/staging.

IOW, if you think John and Patsy Ramsey are completely innocent and completely clueless about the crime and cover-up, and were honest with police, even if the perp is someone they know, you'd go with option 2.

[AutumnBorn]

Of course "they're" involved. One of them killed her. How could "they", excluding Burke and the other kids, not be?

[Ivy]

Originally posted by AutumnBorn
Of course "they're" involved. One of them killed her. How could "they", excluding Burke and the other kids, not be?

Hi, AutumnBorn. Why do you think Burke should be excluded? Dr. Cyril Wecht said there was nothing that was done to JonBenet that someone Burke's age at the time couldn't have done, and Dr. Michael Baden said that Burke needs to be looked at.

I'm convinced Burke did it. Nothing I've read or heard in all the years I've followed the case has changed my opinion on that.

IMO

[TressaRing28]

Originally Posted by AutumnBorn

Of course "they're" involved. One of them killed her. How could "they", excluding Burke and the other kids, not be?

There is NO physical evidence of Ramsey guilt.

DNA might be Codis but, not Ramsey.

My opinion is some sort of coverup after JB was found.




IMO

[Toltec]

Let's presume the Ramseys are innocent. BUT...how do you explain

THE PINEAPPLE?

THE RAMSEY FLASHLIGHT WITH THE PRINTS ON THE BATTERIES WIPED CLEAN?

BURKE's KNIFE THAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE 2nd FLOOR CUPBOARD APPEARING IN THE BASEMENT?

I know there are more but this is just a wee sample of the unexplainable.

[twizzler333]

Originally Posted by Toltec

Let's presume the Ramseys are innocent. BUT...how do you explain

THE PINEAPPLE?

THE RAMSEY FLASHLIGHT WITH THE PRINTS ON THE BATTERIES WIPED CLEAN?

BURKE's KNIFE THAT WAS HIDDEN IN THE 2nd FLOOR CUPBOARD APPEARING IN THE BASEMENT?

I know there are more but this is just a wee sample of the unexplainable.

While the pineapple is one significant piece to the puzzle, I suppose it could be explained by a few scenarios. One I had thought of before was- Maybe the perp convinced JonBenet to go downstairs for a snack with him (had to be someone she knew), the perp served up the pineapple to her then took her to the basement. I think all of the things were taken care of after the murder, i.e., the knife was taken down and hidden, the prints were wiped from the flashlight, etc. The fingerprints on the bowl the pineapple was served in would be consistent with the family having held the bowl at some point in time, does not mean it was at the time the pineapple was served. Fingerprints are placed on dishes when they are put away. Perhaps Burke was helping (as my kids do) by passing the bowls from the dishwasher to mom to put away. There are a number of things that could explain this, and it could be as simple as the Ramsey's being involved, you cannot rule out anything. While this is a mysterious bit of information, it does not necessarily mean the Ramsey's definitely did this.

[TLynn]

The intruder bringing the pineapple into the house is the ONLY explanation if you do not believe a Ramsey is involved in either death and/or cover-up.

Patsy denies buying it, serving it, seeing it - knowing anything about it.

Sooo, what intruder would bring their own pineapple....and why?

[Eagle1]

Okay, if an intruder brought the fresh pineapple, it had to be someone who knew JonBenet liked it, correct? (It's delicious.) She told her friend Megan and her mom that she'd been promised an extra visit by someone calling himself Santa. Would excitement about that make her forget if this was the same person who'd molested her at the party on the 23?

He had her crying and trying to call 911, because not even her parents protected her from molestation, (coroners said autopsy showed she was stretched, so it had evidently happened a lot, probably explained her going to the school nurse almost every Monday, and her bedwetting) and someone took the phone away from her who later claimed his mother was in a hospital, and then Stine wouldn't even open the door for police.

So does that mean the parents were involved, because they apparently never ever protected her? Were they to get business advantages from this? Did they definitely know, or not believe her? Poor little kid, imagine having to live like that!

[AutumnBorn]

~sigh~

I'm not here to convince anybody. The evidence is there for anyone to read about in hundreds of threads. If that doesn't convince you, there's no way I'll be able to.

Burke would have blabbed to White or somebody that morning or later at least. Patsy and John showed no concern about Burke. In fact, they wanted him out of the house immediately. Probably to protect him and preventing him from blurting out something abpit things he may have overheard (like the lie about him being asleep).

The DNA is worthless. If there's no source, it's no good. And there isn't one, as much as the Ramsey's wish there was.

The rest of the evidence came from within the house, no sign of break in, no evidence of an intruder (meaningless DNA doesn't count)...I get tired just thinking about it all. So, I'm goin' to bed.

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by TLynn

Patsy denies buying it, serving it, seeing it - knowing anything about it.

TLynn,

Not Quite. Patsy was evasive in most of her answers to questions during the police interviews, so you have to read between the lines when she talks. For instance, here's how Patsy responded about the pineapple:

Tom Haney: "Just still talking about the bowl itself and the pineapple, and there is probably no way to determine from the photograph whether this was fresh or canned. Do you have either or both in stock at the house?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Usually I would buy those -- I bought pineapple, it was fresh pineapple that had been peeled or whatever they do to it, and core it and cut it up a little bit, or some that had been fresh that was sealed there in the produce area."

Tom Haney: "What store did you buy this from?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Safeway is where I usually buy it from."

Tom Haney: "It is the fresh pineapple that they do all the work for you?"

Patsy Ramsey: "Correct."

So Patsy was purposely evasive and doesn't answer directly whether or not she had fresh pineapple stocked in the house that night. But she implies that she had fresh pineapple stocked in the house. Her answer, as was most of her answers during the interviews, provides wiggle room so she can't be pinned down and caught in a lie or be tied to a hard fact.

JMO

[Eagle1]

TLynn and Blue Crab are quoting from two different sources, right?

They really disagree? I'd hate to have to look through all the books again, after so many times. I seem to remember Patsy's prints were not on the bowl. Burke's were.

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

TLynn and Blue Crab are quoting from two different sources, right?

They really disagree? I'd hate to have to look through all the books again, after so many times. I seem to remember Patsy's prints were not on the bowl. Burke's were.

Both Burke's and Patsy's fingerprints were on the bowl containing the pineapple. There were no other prints on the bowl.

My quotes are directly from the unedited transcripts of the 1998 police interviews.

JMO

[TLynn]

I remember Patsy denying EVERYTHING!

I hate to start looking through books again, myself ....but I remember the complete denial.

It could be in the part where Patsy states it's the wrong type of spoon?

I'll see what I can find....

[BlueCrab]

Originally Posted by TLynn

I remember Patsy denying EVERYTHING!

I hate to start looking through books again, myself ....but I remember the complete denial.

It could be in the part where Patsy states it's the wrong type of spoon?

I'll see what I can find....

I don't see any controversy between what I said and what TLynn said.

Patsy denies serving JonBenet pineapple that night, and she says she never would have served it in a little bowl with a gigantic silver serving spoon stuck in it. She admits occasionally buying fresh pineapple at Safeway.

Where's the controversy?

[Nehemiah]

I remember Patsy's denial being in the "set up" on the breakfast table.

Imo

[Eagle1]

Patsy's prints WERE on the bowl along with Burke's? Her denying ever serving JonBenet pineapple in that bowl is not a conflict between TLynn and Blue C.

Okay, taking your word for it the police transcript says P's prints were on the bowl. None of us wants to look it all up again.

[TLynn]

I looked it up in the transcripts anyway - because, I thought Patsy said she didn't remember having any pineapple in the house and didn't remember buying any...I didn't see it.

Either it's somewhere else or time took the evasiveness of her answers and turned them into her mantra of "I don't remember" in my mind. (OK, that was a little sarcastic). Because in Bluecrab's quote (& in the transcripts), Patsy states "Usually..." Usually, I would buy fresh pineapple, Usually it was from Safeway.

There was no discrepancy about Patsy's prints on the bowl - that's in the transcripts - but Patsy knowing if there was pineapple in the house that night or not is what was confusing to me.

[Ivy]

I don't recall ever reading that Patsy denied that the pineapple in the bowl on the table was fresh pineapple. But she certainly did deny that she is the one who put the bowl on the table.

JonBenet wasn't tall enough to have reached the bowl inside the fridge. Besides Patsy's, Burke's fingerprints were the only others found on the bowl. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Burke took the pineapple out of the fridge that night for JonBenet.

imo

Edited to add... Had the Rs known that Burke gave JonBenet pineapple that night, they wouldn't have locked themselves into the story that JonBenet was asleep when they returned home from the Whites' and was carried to her bed.

imo

[TLynn]

True, Patsy & Burke's prints were on the bowl (interesting that the transcripts don't mention Burke).

Now, if the "intruder" thought enough about wiping the prints of the flashlight battery -- why not the bowl?

Just answered my own question - it didn't have anything to do with the crime (unbeknownst at that time).

[Ivy]

TLynn, I agree. When John and Patsy devised their "JonBenet was asleep" story, they didn't realize that Burke had given her pineapple that night. John or Patsy wiped the flashlight down (even the batteries), but darn! neither of them noticed the bowl of pineapple on the table.

imo

[Toltec]

WHY WOULD AN INTRUDER FEEL THE NEED TO WIPE PRINTS FROM THE RAMSEY's FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES???

JOHN TOLD LE THAT JONBENET WOULD SCREAM BLOODY MURDER IF AN INTRUDER TRIED TO FEED HER PINEAPPLE...IF SHE OPENED HER MOUTH SHE WOULD SCREAM!

[Ivy]

Good question, Toltec. The thing is, the intruder's prints wouldn't be on the batteries in the first place unless he had put new batteries into the flashlight...and if he did, how did he know where to find new batteries in the Rs' house?

If he did change the batteries, it sure would have been a lot simpler for him to have just taken the flashlight with him when he left than for him to wipe it and the batteries down.

imo